The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In California, it is illegal to smoke in most public places. There are certain places that are exempt but not many. They don't allow smoking in sports arenas or within 50 feet of most public buildings.

However, this has led to a new breed of business. These are smoking lounges. They allow people to come in and have a cigarette or cigar and a drink or two. They have started to become very popular and are available in airports and other large facilities throughout Southern California. I expect to see them opening as general facilities in various neighborhoods across the area soon as well.

However, this has led to a new breed of business. These are smoking lounges. They allow people to come in and have a cigarette or cigar and a drink or two. They have started to become very popular and are available in airports and other large facilities throughout Southern California. I expect to see them opening as general facilities in various neighborhoods across the area soon as well.

Their report is valid based on scientific process. Stop saying there is "no proof" when they have thousands of proven cases. (Read their report in full, they have information on who has criticised the reports and how they respond to it.)

Originally Posted by EPA

Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the U.S. presents a serious and substantial public health risk.

In adults:

ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.

If this were true, then at least one of my friends, family, or associates would have cancer caused from second-hand smoke.

This is invalid logic. Just because you haven't seen something occur, doesn't mean it hasn't. I never said that EVERY person who encounters second-hand smoke on a regular basis would develop lung cancer. Some people do.

Originally Posted by URAlly

I'm more willing to believe people are allergic to smoke and have serious side effects from inhaling it, but getting cancer from it? That's what they want you to believe.

Trust me, I'd be happier if you couldn't get cancer from it. I'd feel much safer.

But even if you couldn't, it's bad enough for you without the cancer.

Originally Posted by URAlly

Does anyone here know of anyone who has cancer from second-hand smoke or has died from it?

A woman named Heather Crowe has decided to go public with her problem, to raise awareness of the seriousness of second-hand smoke.

She never smoked a day in her life. She now has lung cancer, which has been proved to have been caused from inhaling tobacco smoke.

Does anyone here know of anyone who has cancer from second-hand smoke or has died from it?

I don't know of someone who died from cancer due to second-hand smoke...however, I do know of someone who died of lung cancer - the same lung cancer that smokers get - and never smoked a day in their life...was not around anyone who smoked...did not go to bars or things of the sort where large amounts of smoking were going on...etc.

so you tell me that just because someone is exposed to second hand smoke they are going to get cancer....I think not!! Some people are prone to cancer, more likely than others to get it...it's just in their genes.

You can do things to prevent it for sure...but, if you are one of those people chances are more likely you will get cancer no matter what precautions you take.

I am pretty much middle ground on this. I think too many people look for someone (or something) to blame for what has happened to them and sometimes it is just going to happen!

How many of you live in big cities with lots of smog and nasty air polution? Caused by cars, buses, trains, factories and such?

I think it is too difficult to pin one specific thing and say that is what causes cancer. There are too many contributing factors. You can not say that someone got cancer just because they were exposed to second hand smoke in a restaurant once a week for a year (or whatever the case) what are the other circumstances of that persons life!

Does anyone here know of anyone who has cancer from second-hand smoke or has died from it?

Actually yeah.. I once knew a young girl who died at the age of 17 with Cigarette Related Lung Cancer. She never smoked a day in her life and thought it was the filthiest habit her parents had. They on the other each smoked more than a pack a day.

Heck, just the other day two kids in my city died because their foster mother left them in a parked SUV in 110+ degree weather (we use Farhenheit here). What should we regulate here? Parking Times? Mandatory Shade in parking lots? Forbidding the use of SUV's on hot days?

The fact is that not smoking in public is a common courtesy and should be observed by people. Regulating it or not is not going to decrease cigarette related deaths. It only allows people to choose if that is how they want to die.

To tell you the truth, if the mortality rate was just a little higher, this planet might be a little better off.

I do agree that it should be a common courtesy.. but some people just don't care. I know that many smokers like to relax with a cigarette during their meal... but restaurant workers shouldn't have to inhale toxins all day long for it.

I am far more concerned with vehicle polution than I am of someone smoking 20 cigarettes, I can get away from the person smoking but I can't hide from the pollutants

And for that reason some governments are also working on regulating vehicle pollution. For example, the province of Ontario has recently begun mandatory emissions testing on all vehicles to take care of the biggest polluters first.

But just because there's another concern does not erase this one.

Originally Posted by davidjmedlock

Peopel who smoke make me SICK! Literally... (okay, not the people, but the smoke.)

Good point. Me too.

And the governments that are passing these laws see it the same way.

What's more important: smokers who are going to be annoyed with these laws if they're passed, or the people who are going to get sick and possibly die from the smoke if they aren't passed.

But why stop there? Next lets ban bad body odor in public or how about we ban all ugly people from public places..wait I know, Lets ban nose picking in public!

The lawmakers are OUT OF CONTROL! Why do they feel it is their duty to control every aspect of our life. There was a time when we had whats called "freedom" and sometimes those freedoms are destructive like drinking or eating junk-food.

In the U.S. theres this little thing called the Constituion and all my days in law school I have yet to come across a section entitled "How to take away everybodys freedoms" which is what current lawmakers seem to be in love with.

In the U.S. theres this little thing called the Constituion and all my days in law school I have yet to come across a section entitled "How to take away everybodys freedoms" which is what current lawmakers seem to be in love with.

I actually saw an interview a couple of years ago with a politician (forget who) that said:

The American people do not actually want freedom. What they actually want is control and order in there lives and it is the government's job to provide that.

But why stop there? Next lets ban bad body odor in public or how about we ban all ugly people from public places..wait I know, Lets ban nose picking in public!

The lawmakers are OUT OF CONTROL! Why do they feel it is their duty to control every aspect of our life. There was a time when we had whats called "freedom" and sometimes those freedoms are destructive like drinking or eating junk-food.

In the U.S. theres this little thing called the Constituion and all my days in law school I have yet to come across a section entitled "How to take away everybodys freedoms" which is what current lawmakers seem to be in love with.

Whos to decide what is right or wrong? you? me? the government?

w00t! You go, Libertarian!

The American people do not actually want freedom. What they actually want is control and order in there lives and it is the government's job to provide that.

But why stop there? Next lets ban bad body odor in public or how about we ban all ugly people from public places..wait I know, Lets ban nose picking in public!

NOTHING like what I said!! Everyone seems to want to stay things like this but are you not noticing that there is a difference between food that's bad for you, un-aesthetically pleasing people and all that.... NONE OF THOSE THINGS KILL PEOPLE! SECOND-HAND SMOKE KILLS THOUSANDS!

I understand you feel like you're losing your freedom to smoke... but both the American constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are founded upon this idea: you have these rights and freedoms provided that you are not infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others.

The price of this 'freedom' is too high. It's costing people their lives. It's posing a risk to everyone who wants to eat or work in restaurants and other public places where there is smoke.

Originally Posted by NFLinsider

The lawmakers are OUT OF CONTROL! Why do they feel it is their duty to control every aspect of our life. There was a time when we had whats called "freedom" and sometimes those freedoms are destructive like drinking or eating junk-food.

I can't believe I'm reading the same comparison again. I don't care if you kill yourself through junk food, or even smoking...

Drinking is destructive to others so it's regulated - people get into cars when drunk. Bad news. If you want to drink yourself to destruction, fine. If you kill or injure someone else or their property, then people start to care.

The governments aren't doing this to CONTROL, they're doing this for the benefit of people. People like me who have chosen not to breathe poison, but still want to be able to go to a public restaurant from time to time.

While I agree this is not a declared freedom (not in the Constitution) it also doesn't mean that the government needs to legislate bans on otherwise free activities either. There are alot of things that can be done to eliminate (or at least reduce) second hand smoke through incentives, tax credits or any numbe rof other things that can be done to get prvate industry and citizens to take care of these things for themselves. I do not believe the foundation of this country, or yours, was intended to have a nanny state like we have now. "We the people..." gave the rights to the State (As in the federal government) to do certain things, but I don't believe "We the people" ever gave them the right to control us.

I quote the preamble of the Constitutioin which adequately lays out the limits of government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nowhere does it give the feds unlimited jurisdiction over individual lives. WE the people gave them rights in certain areas, but not overwhelming authority. They do not give us our rights.

Anyways, that's just a matter of opinion. Personally, I like health care, minimum wage, gun control and some of these things. But I guess that's one of the things I like about Canada compared to the United States... Canada has more of them (without becoming a Socialist nation... I like Canada's balance, but that's my opinion).

It all depends on how you look at it.... I could argue that being able to go to a restaurant and not breathe in smoke is a freedom in itself. I shouldn't be limited so much in what I do because I want to breathe clean air should I?

Off Topic:

Some people would argue that those things (that Sketch mentioned) make the people more free.... because they are no longer burdened with the responsibilities of looking after themselves. That's not exactly my thoughts on the situation... just throwing the idea out.

If you might get cancer eating at a restaurant that allows smoking, then I might suggest eating at ANOTHER restaurant that does not. These are the personal responsibilities we all have that I was referring to.

To carry this conversation a little farth (and maybe farther off track), when individuals and corporations do not take responsibility for themselves, what ends up happening is we descend (spiral like) into a blame game.

Example:

I am obese, so it must be Burger King's fault because they serve fattening food,

I have lung cacer, so I think I'll sue the tobacco companies because they create cigarettes.

I am paralyzed from the neck down because I was in an accident and I just left the bar. I think I'll sue Budweiser.

You get the point.

I on the other hand, advocate the role of personal responsiblity.

If I do not want to get lung cancer from second hand smoke, I exercise my right to eat at another restaurant

I do not want to get fat, so I eat right.

I want to make lots of money, so I go get a job instead of expecting the government to give me money every month.

I want to have money when I retire, so I save money and maybe even invest it. Social Security will not be here when I am 70.

I want my kid to have a quality education, so I pay for private school.

Personal responsibility hurts. It's much easier to expect people to give me things. FWIW, Social Security is no a right either but it seems like everyone in America thinks it is and should be. I need $1+ million to retire. An extremely optimistic view on social security's future give me less than $200,000. I can wait and become a bitter old person, or I can put money away. Personally, why should I (a working class American) have to pay for soeone else's retirement when they could have saved money for themselves. What have they done to earn my money? Why do I owe them anything? This is another dynamic of personal responsibility.

Okay, so I have gone WAAAAAY off track. Sorry. Back to public smoking.

I see what you're saying. And yes, I could eat at another restaurant... but often there are few that don't at least have a smoking section (except here, where you can't smoke in restaurants anymore).

But the fact that second-hand smoke is simply poision... well, that makes it a bit more difficult. They regulate the quality of the food in a restaurant.... should they not also regulate the quality of the air? (or should they stop regulating the food? )

The problem also stems from a lack of knowledge. Second-hand smoke wasn't much of a concern until lately... some scientists weren't sure if it was actually the culprit. So many cases concern people who just didn't know it was so dangerous. It would be less of a problem (or at least there would be less excuse) if people were more aware of the dangers.

I'm actually shocked by the people in this thread who have attempted to argue that second-hand smoke is harmless, or that it doesn't cause cancer, or that nobody has died from it...

(...additionally, it's in the interest of the government and the taxpayer that the number of illness cases due to second hand smoke are reduced - health costs go down with them.)

Well, I went to my first bar last night since the smoking ban went into effect in Florida. It was actually nice to be able to sit at the bar without the lingering smoke, etc. However, I still think that there are better ways (hint: COURTESY!) to get someone to stop smoking at the bar other than legislation. It was also a bit weird to see a large group of smokers outside when I first got it. It looked like a leper colony or something. So yeah, it was nice, but I think the cost outweighs the benefit.